Comment by maxldn
5 days ago
> Europe’s top court has upheld Google’s fine of around 4.1 billion euros ($4.67 billion) over alleged anti-competitive practices.
If they lost the case, and the appeal was dismissed, what is ‘alleged’ about it?
5 days ago
> Europe’s top court has upheld Google’s fine of around 4.1 billion euros ($4.67 billion) over alleged anti-competitive practices.
If they lost the case, and the appeal was dismissed, what is ‘alleged’ about it?
"The court said these are X" and "it is a fact that these are X" are distinct claims, and a lot of journalistic manners is pretending you never state as fact things that could be disputed.
Of course, since there are lots of ways to describe things in bad faith without ever breaking that rule, it can ring hollow once you lose trust...
Are court decisions universally recognized? If a court rules someone true in one area, couldn't it still be considered slander/libel in another area if another court rules it as not being true?
It is a bit like saying convicted murderer vs murderer. One is claiming the conviction for murder happened (which generally correlates to the murder happening but doesn't openly claim such) while the other directly claims the murder happens. If the conviction is later overturned, does the second claim open one up to more libability for a false claim?
> Are court decisions universally recognized?
Are laws in any country universally recognized and respected?
> If the conviction is later overturned, does the second claim open one up to more libability for a false claim?
Common sense would say before you go claim libel you first demand correction, or place onus on publisher to correct a publication with the new developed news.
I know it became normal to police speech nowadays but if a conviction - even before appeal - doesnt allow the use of a label/word, what does?
Now, being CNBC reporting this i guess the issue is less about risk of libel and more to do with the current stance that europe is out to get american companies
I noticed too this in another recent court case journalism recently. Bad journalism or fear?
The people of CNBC's audience are assumed to have reason to want Google to not lose the case. Major news outlets are biased towards capital holders. This is what journalism looks like when it speaks to its intended audience.
Scary to think that that's a real question with an unclear answer now.
[flagged]
The EU doesn't have any equivalent companies. Out of the highest 50 grossing companies in the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_r...) the only ones in the EU are Lidl's parent company, a handful automakers, and one French oil conglomerate. Grocery has practically no margin, the big European auto makers are all declining rapidly, and the EU already does everything it can to make existence impossible for oil conglomerates.
Yeah they'd have to spread the $5B fine across a bunch of EU companies
Do you take fights with massive corporations personally?
Especially given that Google has been targeted by the US government too (although the shots have mostly missed - like the EU antitrust against Microsoft).
What is invalid about the claims, and how is the fine not appropriate given the legal framework Google agreed to work in within the EU?
The US should have fewer scummy companies.
Do note that the US also famously brought a recent antitrust case against Google.
The evidence here is that Google is the one acting badly and being punished in accordance, by both the EU and the US.
Unless of course literally everyone in the world is wrong except you.
Trump said that (unsurprisingly, he did say something along those lines)